It's worth also pointing out that Git can act as a Subversion client, meaning that you don't need to convert everyone to Git all at once; a few team members can just use Git if they like, and their individual workflow improves notably because merging is much easier. Pierre, DVCS's take care of merging the software changes from the individual programmers, but not on actually making the software compile or pass the existing unit tests.
You still need other software to do this whenever the source change, and the best bet we have these days is using a CI-engine and doing it properly — user Show 14 more comments. For me, our switch to git, immediately resulted in Our backups being easier to do just "git remote update" and you're done Easier to commit small steps when working without access to the central repository.
You just work, and synchronize when you come back to the network hosting the central repository. Faster Hudson builds. Much, much faster to use git pull than updating.
So, consider why bittorrent is better than ftp, and reconsider your position : Note: It has been mentioned that there are use-cases where ftp is quicker and than bittorrent. I'm almost decided to try it with a real project. Good idea. There is a lot to learn. If you choose git, github has a lot of good online help. If you choose hg, Joel has written some good online material. If you choose bzr, Canonical most likely has a lot of good online material.
Hmm that assumes that you think that bittorrent is better than FTP Murph, I do, and so do Blizzard who I believe we can agree on knows how to deal with massive online synchronization?
Murph, you start a torrent server on the server and a torrent client on the client. Not hard. It should immediately buy you that only the files that has changed needs to be updated. ALso, have you considered what rsync instead of ftp might buy you for incremental updates? Show 11 more comments.
This is huge, as it provides powerful benefits: You can enjoy the benefits of version control, even when you don't have internet access such as Ever fixed a bug and ended up with something like: r Fixed annoying bug.
At the end of the day, one clean commit gets sent to the master repository that looks like: r Fixed annoying bug. Which is the way it should be. A developer can do work that is entirely isolated within a branch and then when it's time to bring that branch into the trunk you have all sorts of interesting options: Do a plain vanilla merge. Brings everything in warts and all.
Sharpie Sharpie 6 6 silver badges 9 9 bronze badges. Rewriting history: is that just a Git thing? Or is it easy in Mercurial too? If it is, I really need to start doing it. One should be aware of the Linux Kernel discipline when doing this -- namely, never rebase or rewrite history a branch that you've published publically. If you have branches that are public for short-term use for merging into branches that get thrown away frequently like linux-next, or for someone to review and then throw away their local copies then you can rebase those branches -- but your other users should be clear that the convention for that branch is that it can be rebased and shouldn't be merged into any other peoples' long-term branches.
That frequently happens to me when travelling. Not requiring internet access is a very big deal, because that's where the speed of DVCS comes from. As soon as you have to send packets over a network, you are slowing the process down by an order of magnitude or so regardless of how good your connection is.
Paul, my understanding that in Mercurial it can be done, but it isn't the base functionality or philosophy. Show 6 more comments. My company recently switched to Mercurial from CVS. People are erasing other peoples changes during merges way more often when on CVS. JuozasKontvainis: I don't know mercurial very well, but in git you can disallow pushes that include merges that don't have HEAD as a parent, which prevents users pushing changes that don't have the most recent changes from master included.
I'm sure there's something similar in mercurial. What happens is that programmer commits his changes locally, then tries push. He gets a response from server that he needs merge before he can push. He gets updates from the server and tries to make a merge commit. At this point I don't know exactly how those persons made a merge commit but on several occasions that merge commit basically erased the changes they got from server. It sounds like people pulled the changes, then actually deleted the changes they got from the server when merging which is possible.
Of course, the changeset from the server is still there, so you can reset the repository to the state it was in before their changes. Add a comment. Community Bot 1. Martin Wickman Martin Wickman Git was designed for distributed work across the globe and encourages people to work on their own projects and create own forks. It was not specifically designed for continuous integration in "small and highly collaborative teams" which is what the OP is asking for.
But if two ppl are changing the same parts of the code, you have a planning problem in your team, and that cannot be solved by any VCS. Distributed or not. The OP is in a co-located team using CI. This means they make many small check-ins often several times a day. Given this, I see no reason why using a dvcs should give any particular advantage and I see no reason why any huge merges should occur and thus no merging hell. I wouldn't recommend svn for a distributed team though, but that is not the case here.
MartinWickman - Mercurial was designed to committing, branching, and merging fast and cheap. That sounds perfect for continuous integration. Personally, I think that having the ability for Alice to branch her changes and suggest that Bob pull them and merge his changes onto that branch to check for problems--all without touching the central server or pushing changes anywhere--sounds like a great way for small and highly collaborative teams to work.
I've used Subversion, Mercurial, and Git now for various projects. Subversion really seems to be the best choice for a very tightly integrated group doing continuous integration. Mercurial is a better fit for groups that might only do one build a day with a lot more code changes each time that would create merge issues in SVN.
Show 9 more comments. Pete Pete 8, 3 3 gold badges 37 37 silver badges 50 50 bronze badges. Very true, experimenting alternatives should be automatic.
Agree with that, even if you hate the new tool that the damn kids use, I think its important to force yourself to at least try new things, especially if these things are making massive waves. This alone could make me switch!
Xavier Nodet Xavier Nodet 3, 2 2 gold badges 25 25 silver badges 32 32 bronze badges. Agree, git checkout is extremely fast. Large, distributed projects Why do we need lieutenants in a highly collaborating team with good practices and good design habits? Ken Bloom Ken Bloom 2, 16 16 silver badges 20 20 bronze badges.
I don't get your first point. Do you have some references? Regarding the last one, I would divide the project into separate components instead. I never worked on a such large projet, the maximum number of developer I got on the same project is two dozens. That's certainly reasonable to divide the project into separate components. Since Linux is a monolithic kernel, that means essentially that all the device drivers have to be developed in the same repository, even though each is essentially a separate project.
At the same time, they want the agility for their more experienced architects to make wide-ranging changes that touch all of these drivers, so breaking them up into different repositories will be a pain. So git and lieutenants suit them well for managing these different concerns. I do bisections on SVN regularly to find bugs. The only difference with Git is that it's not all automatic. But this alone would not be enough for us to switch. The relevance of git bisect for small teams is almost nil.
I get it for the kernel where hundreds of changes from different people are being merged in at once and breaking things, but when you have a team of 5, you can usually eliminate all but potential culprit patches with a quick look at the log.
Show 5 more comments. Vadim Vadim 3 3 silver badges 9 9 bronze badges. So what are the benefits? True, but central git repositories may be difficult to set up if you are in a Windows environment.
I guess that's pretty much the only one I could think of. We were forced to use CVS at the corporate level, so we didn't really have much of a choice. I have no fear of checking in stuff, as I have no problems getting it into a incomplete, but compilable state. For example, V2 of some software was being maintained by a different team, using a different VCS, while we were developing V3.
I know it was not ideal, but it was a management decision to use different VCS systems. I don't think that isolated development is actually the working model of DVCS.
One important feature of a DVCS is that other members of the team can pull your local changes or clone your local repository. Here are some other various commands:. To start with, there's the language they're written in.
My experiences with Git and Mercurial have been very similar, but I know that if I want to tweak Mercurial, I can do it, because it's written in Python.
Git is at least somewhat in C, which I'm not as familiar with. Git and Mercurial are what's called distributed. Every copy is created equal, and they can push and pull using that terminology changes from each other on an ad-hoc basis. Subversion, on the other hand, consists of a single central repository, and each working copy is a slave to that central server, pushing and pulling committing and updating, in this case changes from it and it alone.
Installing Git or Mercurial for a couple of people consists of getting SSH access to the same server and installing a couple of packages. For all my personal projects, I go with Mercurial or Git. If I were working with a large team, I'd probably go Subversion because you get centralized authentication and hosting. But for two people, I'd pick one of the distributed ones, because then you don't have to mess with centralized authentication and hosting.
Git and Mercurial are quite similar but different enough to warrant caution. In general many projects are moving toward distributed systems. For your small project, you're probably better off with Git or Mercurial. Which one you choose is essentially a matter of taste, although I prefer Git myself and am far more familiar with it. You can set up a central server at any time, and all the changes will be there. You can use e. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.
Create a free Team What is Teams? Collectives on Stack Overflow. Learn more. Asked 11 years, 4 months ago. Active 4 years, 1 month ago.
Viewed 65k times. Improve this question. Community Bot 1 1 1 silver badge. Comes with a handy Widget for Mac OS — you can monitor account activity across all of your projects from one simple interface. Free with 2 people, with 1 project for up to MB storage. Free with 1 person, with 1 project for up to MB storage. A decent feature set and represent excellent value for money.
It is implemented as a Windows shell extension, which makes it integrate seamlessly with explorer. It is easy to use.
In whatever client you are using, you need to create a new source control repository. You will need to enter the URL of you repository along with your user name and password in your client.
Once you have your head around these basic concepts, the documentation provided with each client is a good starting point for more advanced features. Besides the ability to back up your code safely in the cloud, allowing your developers to work from anywhere, version control can also allow you to find and revert changes which might have broken your regression tests. By performing a diff between the current and previous versions, you can easily determine what has changes were made and then rectify as necessary.
Rob Rawson is a co-founder of Time Doctor which is software to improve productivity and help keep track and know what your team is working on, even when working from home. Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff on remote working and productivity to your email inbox.
We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously. Also it is easier to use. Uh Mercurial less powerful than Git? I dont think so!. The only real downsides are: Its a bit slower than Git Gits a rocket ship, theres no denying that , and it just doesnt have the marketshare it used to have Boo Atlassian!
Git is the worst versioning system. You listed what it promises not what it delivers. Git often fails at doing simple merge or branch switch due to many branches is extremely sliw and occupies lot of space and its over complicated procedures make you often lose an entire day for an operation that should be done in 15 min. Is awful. Even VSS is better. Pros: Easier to learn than Git and just as powerful Better documentation with actual help output when you ask it Distributed model Cons: No merging of two parents uhm, so what am I merging when I merge?
Less out of the box power wrong, less default-configured chances to shoot off your legs. I am not going to hide that I am biased in favor of Mercurial. Because it has a design, it has a concept and — for the most part — is a consistent tool that helps me get my job done. As opposed to Git which does honor to its name and does quite the opposite.
Hello, great article. The title brings three tools and you talk about four. Thank you for the great article.
The pricing is lower than most of the tools listed and when you see the product you quickly understand what a good user experience means. Any of the others is a better choice.
Subversion is the one choice that lets you control control access over who is able to do what to which sub trees. Mercurial works a lot like subversion for people working alone. When you are disconnected from the net perhaps on a long flight you can still commit code when you want to.
Git is a low level tool that could be made useable with wrappers around it to suit your developmemt process. Unless you know its internals, feedback when something goes wrong conflicts needing to be resolved, for example can be totally and inexcusably misleading.
If your team already uses and prefers Git, go for it. Anyone else would benefit from something more structured. Thank you for the great mention of Unfuddle. Very much appreciated, and we would be thrilled to answer any questions from you or your readers.
Thanks again! Try Kiln from Fog Creek Software fogcreek. If you have binary data. Does Git allow one to many configuration? I am using TFS: Source Control but it requires you to upload a solution and download the entire solution not just an individual file. As a starter, this is what I understood to be the problem:.
At some point the two want to combine what they did in a single repository. Is that the problem mentioned above? Getting to the top, especially if the amount of competition for your specific keywords is high, you might want to focus on other techniques to help you in the interim and that will also assist you with your rankings, such as link building.
Google may consider the so-called anchor text within the link the word or phrase which is linked and the authority of the website that the link is coming from to determine how highly or lowly your website ought to rank. For instance, if you write about flooring, you might have carpet ads on your page. I have selected Git for my team but I like the analysis presented. I have a small development team that works on many different projects using different apps with different filetypes, including Microsoft Dynamics SL, Crystal Reports, Visual Cut, Access, and lots of documents and images, etc.
Half of the team works remotely, and finds connecting over the VPN pretty slow. Right now we have five testing machines and a live sever that all mirror most of the same environments, and use our own machines to host code and deploy to all of the different servers. We have Windows servers. Keeping track of versions and history is key, and it would be nice to have the option to lock out other developers from files if necessary, and also to save a change or a bug fix as a unit of files, for ease of deployment.
What say you? Hard to disagree with Tim Eckel more. Setting up GIT and learning a few commands is not a hard thing. The project can grow without having to constantly develop a system to maintain code versioning. Why not list the other option, no version control system at all? I create my own versioning backup system and via the cloud update all my development systems in real time. The advantage is that everything is automated and runs in the background. I can honestly not think of a reason why I would use any of the version control platforms listed in this article.
Then look at Sparkleshare. It works like Dropbox, using Git under the cover. In our case, we are using Hg and we would not be able to work without it or Git, it does the same stuff. We are constantly merging branches and clones, and our merges often imply more than files. Some are trying with SVN or worst , and they spend weeks doing merges.
Even alone, I do use Hg, it allows me to work in branche, separate my change efficiently, work on parallel tasks and then merge it easily. It also makes me save a lot of time because I can find traces of change I made months ago very quickly and take actions if needed.
0コメント